News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
Tesla just gave what is perhaps its biggest signal yet that the launch of the Cybercab, its autonomous ride-hailing-geared car, is imminent.
The Cybercab has been spotted outside of Gigafactory Texas in massive numbers over the past few days, with hundreds of units being stored on property just days after the vehicle received a Certificate of Conformity from the EPA.
Today, things were a bit different.
Cybercabs spotted on Giga Texas property today had an addition: a Cybercab decal on the side, reminiscent of the “Robotaxi” ones that were placed on Model Ys just as the company launched its ride-sharing platform about a year ago.
Giga Texas drone operator Joe Tegtmeyer noticed the change today:
Tesla Cybercabs are now getting “Cybercab” logos on the side of them!
Tesla did the same with Model Ys that were given “Robotaxi” logos: https://t.co/DanANtw1m7 pic.twitter.com/FqOhH0S9Ks
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) June 19, 2026
Tesla could be signaling that the Cybercab is preparing to enter the Robotaxi fleet in the coming weeks or months with this move. It seems more symbolic than anything; Tesla is ready to throw Cybercabs in the ride-hailing platform just as it did with Model Ys last year.
The addition of the Certificate of Conformity awarded to the Cybercab is another major factor working to Tesla’s advantage. The company now has permission from the EPA to allow the vehicle to operate on public roads and enter the chain of commerce. It’s officially street legal.
Tesla Cybercab specs revealed: range, curb weight, range ratings, and more
The big question that remains is whether Tesla will be able to operate the car without a safety monitor, especially considering it plans to put the car out there without a steering wheel or pedals. With the Cybercab only having a seating capacity of two, it is hard to believe Tesla will even consider putting a Safety Monitor in the car.
It did recently self-certify as Level 4 and has the ability to operate driverless vehicles in the State of Texas under a law that took effect on May 28. You can read more about that here:
Tesla’s Robotaxi dreams just took a massive step toward reality
We’d imagine Cybercabs will be on the roads as soon as July, but August will likely be a better estimate of when the car will be entered into the Cybercab fleet. It all depends at where Tesla is, as they’ve truly prioritized safety with the rollout of the Robotaxi platform.
Elon Musk has publicly questioned Moody’s credit assessments following the rating agency’s decision to assign SpaceX a Baa1 investment-grade rating, two notches above Tesla’s Baa3. The comments came amid discussions comparing the two companies’ financial profiles.
SpaceX earned its first-time Baa1 rating with a stable outlook from Moody’s. The agency highlighted the company’s leadership in orbital launches, the growing recurring revenue from its Starlink satellite network, strong vertical integration, U.S. government contracts, and emerging opportunities in AI infrastructure.
These factors were cited as supporting robust cash flows, margin expansion, and financial flexibility.
Musk responded directly: “Tesla’s credit rating is ridiculously low tbh,” and added, “Yeah, makes no sense. Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt, and is consistently profitable!” His remarks underscored Tesla’s balance sheet strength and profitability at a time when many traditional automakers continue to report losses in the shift to electric vehicles.
Yeah, makes no sense.
Tesla has over $40B in cash, no debt and is consistently profitable!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 19, 2026
Tesla maintains a leading position in the global EV market, with diversification into energy and storage, battery technology, and robotics through projects like Optimus. Recent financial updates show the company generated positive free cash flow of $1.4 billion in Q1 2026, supported by operating cash flow of $3.9 billion. Cash and short-term investments stood at approximately $44.7 billion.
Moody’s has affirmed Tesla’s Baa3 issuer rating with a stable outlook in periodic reviews, acknowledging the company’s EV leadership, technology strengths, including AI for autonomous vehicles, solid profitability, and strong liquidity.
Tesla (TSLA) scores Baa3 Moody’s rating for ‘stable’ outlook
However, the agency has also noted challenges in the automotive segment and expectations for margin pressures.
Musk’s critique highlights a common debate about how traditional rating methodologies apply to high-growth, capital-intensive technology companies. SpaceX benefits from long-term government-backed contracts and diversified, recurring revenue streams, while Tesla’s valuation reflects heavy investment in future technologies such as autonomy and robotics.
Both ratings remain investment-grade, yet the one-notch difference has fueled online discussion about potential inconsistencies in evaluating innovative firms.
The exchange comes as SpaceX explores financing options following its recent valuation milestones, while Tesla continues executing on its multi-year roadmap. Musk’s pointed response serves as a reminder that credit ratings, though influential for borrowing costs, represent one lens through which markets assess corporate strength—and that company leaders often view their financial positions through the lens of long-term innovation and cash generation rather than short-term risk metrics alone.
A new report from Reuters claims that a transport authority in Sweden is pushing back against the approval of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite because it will travel over speed limits.
The report says the Swedish Transport Administration (TRV) recommends the European Union votes against FSD’s approval. TRV believes it should not be approved until Tesla disables FSD’s ability to speed.
TRV sent a letter to the European Union’s Technical Committee on Motor Vehicles (TCMV), which is set to meet on June 30 to discuss the potential approval of the Tesla FSD suite in the country. Tesla, which has received various approvals in Europe over the past two months, has not provided a comment.
Teslas operating on FSD do travel over the speed limit, depending on the Speed Profile that is chosen. Drivers have the ability to disengage FSD at any point; Tesla specifically states that those supervising the suite are responsible for its actions.
Let’s cut to the chase: humans operating any vehicle speed almost daily in the United States. Realistically, speed limits in the U.S. are more frequently treated as speed minimums. However, other countries are different, and driving behaviors are less aggressive.
TRV believes that “allowing automated systems to systematically exceed legal speed limits…risks undermining both the legal framework and the expected safety benefits of vehicle automation,” the report stated. It’s surprising that Tesla has not received this claim from other countries previously.
This could be a good argument to bring Max Speed back, the setting that previously allowed the driver to choose the absolute fastest the car would travel.
This would still put the responsibility of supervision in the hands of the driver. It would allow the driver to choose whether the car would travel over the speed limit or not, acknowledging that they set the speed, and if they get pulled over, there would be no ability to argue it.
However, it does not seem as if this is something Tesla will do, especially considering many U.S. drivers have requested the feature in an effort to eliminate speeding or at least tone it down. The company has not shown any interest in bringing it back.
Tesla has approvals for FSD in Europe in Estonia, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium.
Tesla Cybercab launch is imminent after latest sighting at Giga Texas
Elon Musk says this part of Tesla ‘makes no sense’
